IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.573 of 2025
[ Muhammad Imran
versus The State ]
|
DATE |
ORDER WITH
SIGNATUREs OF JUDGEs |
For
hearing of bail application
-----------------------------------------------------
25.02.2026
Mr. Zameer Ali Soomro, advocate for
applicant
Mr. Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G. &
Ms. Rukhsana Qassim Mirjat, ADPP
-------------------------------------------
Applicant
Muhammad Imran son of Muhammad Ramzan seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No.91/2024,
registered at P.S. Artillery Maidan, Karachi for offence under Section 320,
322, 427, 279, 114, PPC, after dismissal of his bail plea by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-V, South Karachi vide order dated 17.02.2025.
Brief
facts of the prosecution case are that deceased died in a road accident and
present applicant was driving tanker at the relevant time, hence subject FIR.
Learned
counsel for applicant mainly contended that applicant is innocent and he has
been falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide intentions and ulterior
motives; that alleged incident is of a road accident, which requires further
inquiry so as to determine the criminal negligence on the part of the
applicant; that all the sections are bailable, except Section 279, PPC, which
is punishable for two years, hence does not come within the ambit of
prohibitory clause of section 497,
Cr.PC.
Counsel
for complainant is called absent, without any intimation. Learned A.P.G.
opposed for grant of bail on the ground that at the time alleged incident
applicant had no driving license and has committed the offence in which an
innocent person has lost his life.
Heard learned
counsel for applicant, learned A.P.G. and perused the material available on
record.
In
fact, this is a road accident and all the Sections applied in the FIR are
bailable, except Section 279, PPC, which is punishable with either
description, which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both. The alleged offence
does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC; that
as to determine negligent driving on his part which requires further inquiry in
terms of Section 497(2), Cr.PC in the offence which does not fall come within
the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.PC, rule is grant of bail
and its refusal is an exception, as held by apex Court in the case of Muhammad
Tanveer versus State (PLD 2017 SC 733). Therefore, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the
applicant above named by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 is confirmed on
the same terms and conditions.
The observations made
herein above are tentative in nature, the same would not prejudice the case of
either party at trial.
The instant
criminal bail application is accordingly disposed
of.
J
U D G E
Gulsher/PS